OPINION:
Anti-police activists and the press tend to reveal their ignorance whenever they discuss qualified immunity.
Attempts to strip America’s law enforcement officers of qualified immunity are dangerous and would lead to more crime if enacted.
Let’s clarify what qualified immunity is, and what it is not.
The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials carrying out official acts from being sued unless the official violated a person’s statutory or constitutional rights. Every single factual scenario an officer encounters is different and unknown. It is almost impossible for an officer to determine how a legal doctrine will apply to a split-second factual scenario.
One of the biggest misconceptions about qualified immunity is that it acts as a “get out of jail free card” for police officers. It does not stop the police from being held accountable. Police officers are routinely indicted and convicted of breaking the law while on duty. Similarly, if an officer violates department policies, they face agency discipline.
The Supreme Court established the qualified immunity doctrine in 1967 to shield police officers, firefighters, teachers and others from civil liability when they act following the laws they are sworn to uphold. As the name suggests, this immunity is protective, but it’s no guarantee against being successfully sued.
The protection that qualified immunity offers is essential not only for the safety and well-being of law enforcement officers but also for the communities they serve. Without this legal safeguard, officers might hesitate to take decisive action in critical situations. They would freeze up and not act. This hesitation could lead to dire consequences, such as the loss of innocent lives.
Officers need a certain degree of discretion to carry out their duties in situations that could jeopardize lives, including their own. Each scenario an officer encounters is unique, contains unknown variables and evolves rapidly. The qualified immunity doctrine provides the necessary breathing room for officers to make split-second decisions.
Qualified immunity ensures that officers acting in good faith under the law are protected from unwarranted legal action.
Few professions require employees to confront dangerous situations and still be expected to act. Most professions are designed to protect their employees from such risks. We all know that police officers run toward danger. The nature of law enforcement is unique and cannot be compared to other occupations.
Fortunately, in October 2021, the Supreme Court unanimously reaffirmed the qualified immunity precedent by reversing lower court decisions in two significant cases. The Fraternal Order of Police is proud of the arguments we presented supporting that court decision.
If qualified immunity were eliminated or severely restricted, it would likely have a chilling effect on law enforcement. The threat of a lawsuit over any misstep would mean police officers would naturally be more hesitant to act. The legal insurance premiums for the departments would also skyrocket, and department policies would be instituted to limit police effectiveness.
Furthermore, law enforcement is already experiencing a recruiting crisis, with departments across the nation understaffed and exorbitant bonuses being offered just for receiving an application. Imagine what would happen if recruits learned they could be sued just for attempting to do their jobs.
A world without qualified immunity has fewer police officers and more emboldened criminals.
It is crucial for the public to understand that qualified immunity is not about shielding bad actors from justice. It is about ensuring that good officers can continue to protect and serve without the constant fear of legal retribution for actions taken in the line of duty.
• Patrick Yoes is president of the Fraternal Order of Police. Founded in 1915, the FOP is the largest law enforcement labor organization in the United States, with more than 377,000 members.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.